Is it right to mooch off your neighbor's open Wi-Fi network?

[FreakyLocz14]

I've been using my neighbor's for years. It has a generic SSID (linksys) and has always been open. We live in an apartment complex. It's so easy to set-up at least WEP encyption, so it should taken as a given that an open network for so long without anybody saying anything about it implies authorization, right?

The only federal law I can find on this was passed in 1986, long before 802.1x Wi-Fi networks were thought of:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00001030----000-.html

I read over the Wi-Fi User Protection Bill that was passed in California, and all it appears to do is require warning labels to be placed on routers to encrypt their networks. It appears that actually accessing those networks hasn't been outlawed in my state, yet. There still may be local laws, so I don't want all of my fellow Californians to think that they're necessarily in the clear.

Also, there is this statute:

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 13848-13848.6

(2) Unlawful access, destruction of or unauthorized entry into and
use of private, corporate, or government computers and networks,
including wireless and wireline communications networks and law
enforcement dispatch systems, and the theft, interception,
manipulation, destruction, or unauthorized disclosure of data stored
within those computers and networks.

That law doesn't really define what is considered authorized and unauthorized. That seems to apply more to hacking into networks, as it's intent isn't very clear. It also doesn't spell out any specific punishment for breaking it.

There is also this California statute from 1988, but this was; again, passed at a time when 802.1x networks were never thought of:
https://webboard.piercecollege.edu/...a Penal Code Computer Crimes Section 502.aspx

Here's are parts of the text of a bill (I don't know if it has been passed yet or not) in New York:

(3) Knowingly and without permission uses or causes to be used computer services.

Here's the definition of "computer services" the law provides:
4) "Computer services" includes, but is not limited to, computer time, data processing, or storage functions, or other uses of a computer, computer system, or computer network.

There have been cases where people have been fined, or even faced jail time, for accessing somebody's unsecured Wi-Fi network; but this still remains a legal grey area since higher courts have yet to rule on those cases where people have gotten in trouble.

Discuss.

 

[Palkia]

I call using a neighbors Wi-Fi network without their permission stealing. It's not right in the slightest.

 

[Oryx]

I think it depends on your intentions on the network. On the one hand, if you have a perfectly good network and you're logging onto theirs to torrent and stream videos so you don't have to deal with the lag on your own network, that's not right. But I've had times where my internet was shut off for a few days and I've used the neighbor's network, and I don't see anything wrong with that. They have the ability to secure it and they chose not to. If someone dropped a 20 dollar bill in the middle of the street, I don't think they'd expect people not to steal it. If you care so much about people using your network, secure it.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I call using a neighbors Wi-Fi network without their permission stealing. It's not right in the slightest.

How is it stealing? Did your neighbor suffer any form of financial loss? Stealing usually requires somebody to take or use the goods or services of another with the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of it. I don't see how access permanently deprives anybody of their Wi-Fi network.

Also, how do we know when permission is given or not. Legitimate open access points are all over the place, so how can anybody be sure that they aren't accessing a network that was intended for public use. I don't need to ask the employee's at Starbuck's or McDonald's if I can use the Wi-Fi. It's just there for anybody to use.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just saying that this issue is a confusing legal grey area as of now in most places.

 

[Cherrim]

Well, if they have a very low bandwidth cap, any downloading or streaming that goes over their cap could add on to their bill (since they probably aren't paying for the internet with the intention of heavy use). Really, I would liken it to them leaving their apartment unlocked everyday. Sure, you can go in and grab some milk, maybe some sandwich fixings, and an apple from their fridge and they might not notice those go missing each time (or care), but that doesn't make it okay. :P

I guess legally, it's fine if there aren't any laws about it where you are but morally if you don't have permission from whichever neighbour whose internet you're using, you shouldn't be using it because it's not yours. Common sense dictates whether an internet connection is for public use or not. :/ Most open networks in public (ie restaurants, bars, cafes, libraries, etc.) have pretty obvious SSIDs that identify them as belonging to that franchise. Chances are though, if the SSID is just "linksys", it's some elderly couple whose kids set up an internet connection for them and they have no idea how to encrypt it, nevermind change the SSID or anything.

 

[donavannj]

How is it stealing? Did your neighbor suffer any form of financial loss? Stealing usually requires somebody to take or use the goods or services of another with the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of it. I don't see how access permanently deprives anybody of their Wi-Fi network.

Also, how do we know when permission is given or not. Legitimate open access points are all over the place, so how can anybody be sure that they aren't accessing a network that was intended for public use. I don't need to ask the employee's at Starbuck's or McDonald's if I can use the Wi-Fi. It's just there for anybody to use.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just saying that this issue is a confusing legal grey area as of now in most places.

You would need to follow common sense in this case. There's the matter of most access points that are public access for a place being very obvious that they are intended for public access in the naming. Also, if your neighbor's tech savvy and has an open WiFi network for other neighbors (assuming these neighbors have an agreement in written form with this neighbor) but still monitors their network, you could be legally in danger if they didn't give you written permission. Plus, operating on someone's OPEN network could leave you vulnerable to what equates to drive-by hackings, which would involve another computer on that network modifying the router (remember, this router has no password if it's open) so that all the traffic on that network gets mirrored to their computer, including encrypted information. They can then either use this information themselves or sell it off to other cybercriminals (mirroring can be done anyways by the network administrator, but it's their private network so they can do whatever they choose within their network for the security of their information, but selling your information is still illegal). So you face a major security risk as well.

There's also the stuff Lightning cited, and your unauthorized usage could be putting them over their network cap, which costs them financially and deprives them of they level of service they pay for. Depriving them of the level of service they pay for also happens below the cap as well, since you using their network puts traffic that hoards their connection that wouldn't otherwise be on their network.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

You would need to follow common sense in this case. There's the matter of most access points that are public access for a place being very obvious that they are intended for public access in the naming. Also, if your neighbor's tech savvy and has an open WiFi network for other neighbors (assuming these neighbors have an agreement in written form with this neighbor) but still monitors their network, you could be legally in danger if they didn't give you written permission. Plus, operating on someone's OPEN network could leave you vulnerable to what equates to drive-by hackings, which would involve another computer on that network modifying the router (remember, this router has no password if it's open) so that all the traffic on that network gets mirrored to their computer, including encrypted information. They can then either use this information themselves or sell it off to other cybercriminals (mirroring can be done anyways by the network administrator, but it's their private network so they can do whatever they choose within their network for the security of their information, but selling your information is still illegal). So you face a major security risk as well.

There's also the stuff Lightning cited, and your unauthorized usage could be putting them over their network cap, which costs them financially and deprives them of they level of service they pay for. Depriving them of the level of service they pay for also happens below the cap as well, since you using their network puts traffic that hoards their connection that wouldn't otherwise be on their network.

You haven't established that my usage is unauthorized yet. There is a legal doctrine called implied consent that I, and others, can raise as a defense. The law is technical and doesn't give heed to common sense. If I were to be prosecuted (assuming that my access is indeed criminal), the state would have to prove that I knowingly accessed the network unauthoriized. That means that I would have to know that I'm not allowed access. Implied consent would dictate that due to the circumstances of the open network, as well as the history of usage without any warnings to cease and desist, that I could reasonably believe that I have consent to access the network.

Adding to what Lightning said, I know that none of my neighbors are an elderly couple. Renaming your SSID something that tells others to keep out could get around an implied consent defense if they want to keep it open for guests that come over or something. And if I were to go into their apartment and eat their food, that would constitute stealing since I am permanently depriving them of their goods.

 

[Cherrim]

Well, it's really, really not hard to encrypt with a simple passcode that can be given to guests. Even just a word or string of numbers is better than nothing. Anyone who knows that private wireless networks can be encrypted probably will. If they aren't change any of the defaults, it likely means they don't know how or don't know it can be done.

But I wouldn't say that makes it okay to access it anyway. Yes, they should be encrypting it but you know it's not your connection and since it doesn't say StarbucksWifi or PublicLibrary or something like that, it's very likely to be a residential network. If nothing is posted in your apartment building saying it's free for use, it likely isn't.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Well, it's really, really not hard to encrypt with a simple passcode that can be given to guests. Even just a word or string of numbers is better than nothing. Anyone who knows that private wireless networks can be encrypted probably will. If they aren't change any of the defaults, it likely means they don't know how or don't know it can be done.

But I wouldn't say that makes it okay to access it anyway. Yes, they should be encrypting it but you know it's not your connection and since it doesn't say StarbucksWifi or PublicLibrary or something like that, it's very likely to be a residential network. If nothing is posted in your apartment building saying it's free for use, it likely isn't.

I'm pretty sure I'm within the law. It might not be ethical to you, but I'm a bit of a rebel. If it is illegal, the only law I've seen that I could possibly be charged under (and it's not clear that that law covers this) calls for a fine not to exceed $250 for the first offense, so I would contest it in court under a defense of implied consent and that the law is void for vagueness should I find out the hard way that what I'm doing is illegal.

The Wi-Fi in some public places don't have SSIDs like that, though. I've seen some that also just say "linksys", "AT&T", or the name of the ISP they use. Those are very generic names. Also, they don't always require you to ask permission before you use them. It's just a given that they're open networks. That's akin to going inside and using the restroom without being a customer. Places post signs saying that their restrooms are for customers only, or that their Wi-Fi is for customers only, so that there is no confusion that they don't want you using their network.

 

[Oryx]

I'm pretty sure I'm within the law. It might not be ethical to you, but I'm a bit of a rebel. If it is illegal, the only law I've seen that I could possibly be charged under (and it's not clear that that law covers this) calls for a fine not to exceed $250 for the first offense, so I would contest it in court under a defense of implied consent and that the law is void for vagueness should I find out the hard way that what I'm doing is illegal.

Legal doesn't always mean right. The debate is on if it's right, not if it's legal. What Lightning is saying is outside of any law or any technical legalese, just a belief that it's not right to be on an open wi-fi network.

However I can't say I have much sympathy for people that don't protect their wireless. I protect mine, my 80 year old aunt's internet is also protected because we set it up. Ours used to not be protected. We saw other computers on it from time to time. We weren't upset and we didn't feel like they were stealing from us, we just noted "we should protect our network soon" and went on our way until we got around to it. I feel like not protecting your wireless is like owning a bike with a lock and never bothering to lock it to anything because you didn't read the part of the manual that said the bike came with a lock, if that makes sense. It's not quite analogous because when someone steals a bike, the other person loses it, but the same idea of "you can protect it and choose not to" applies. If I was on an unprotected network with caps, saw someone else was using my network, the first thing I would do would be to ask if I could stop it, either by looking it up or asking someone that knows (in the case of the elderly who had their accounts set up by someone else).

I think honestly that routers should come with an automatic protection placed on them unless the person specifically changes the settings after it's set up. That way no one can claim "I didn't know you could protect it".

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Legal doesn't always mean right. The debate is on if it's right, not if it's legal. What Lightning is saying is outside of any law or any technical legalese, just a belief that it's not right to be on an open wi-fi network.

However I can't say I have much sympathy for people that don't protect their wireless. I protect mine, my 80 year old aunt's internet is also protected because we set it up. Ours used to not be protected. We saw other computers on it from time to time. We weren't upset and we didn't feel like they were stealing from us, we just noted "we should protect our network soon" and went on our way until we got around to it. I feel like not protecting your wireless is like owning a bike with a lock and never bothering to lock it to anything because you didn't read the part of the manual that said the bike came with a lock, if that makes sense. It's not quite analogous because when someone steals a bike, the other person loses it, but the same idea of "you can protect it and choose not to" applies. If I was on an unprotected network with caps, saw someone else was using my network, the first thing I would do would be to ask if I could stop it, either by looking it up or asking someone that knows (in the case of the elderly who had their accounts set up by someone else).

I think honestly that routers should come with an automatic protection placed on them unless the person specifically changes the settings after it's set up. That way no one can claim "I didn't know you could protect it".

Some ISPs do give out routers or sell routers like that. One came with our subscription to AT&T back when we had it, and it had the WEP key printed on the back. It came protected and that setting could not be changed.

Also, California requires warning labels to be placed on routers warning people that they should secure their network or others will be able to access it.

 

[Oryx]

Some ISPs do give out routers or sell routers like that. One came with our subscription to AT&T back when we had it, and it had the WEP key printed on the back. It came protected and that setting could not be changed.

Also, California requires warning labels to be placed on routers warning people that they should secure their network or others will be able to access it.

I think every one should be like that. There should still be the ability to have it open (what if you WANT to give out your wi-fi to anyone for some reason, you should be allowed to), but they should come set to protected when you first set it up. That way, people setting up networks for others won't unprotect it (more work than they have to do) and people that don't know they can be protected won't be able to claim that anymore.

I think the password for our router right now is actually printed underneath our router as well, but we had to protect it ourselves, the code was just default.

 

[Shining Raichu]

I don't see a problem with it. It's probably not ethically sound, but if they're silly enough not to password protect it, then it's really their own problem.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I think every one should be like that. There should still be the ability to have it open (what if you WANT to give out your wi-fi to anyone for some reason, you should be allowed to), but they should come set to protected when you first set it up. That way, people setting up networks for others won't unprotect it (more work than they have to do) and people that don't know they can be protected won't be able to claim that anymore.

I think the password for our router right now is actually printed underneath our router as well, but we had to protect it ourselves, the code was just default.

I agree. Some ISPs; however, do not allow you to share your Wi-Fi. This more of an issue of whether or not you're violating your terms of service rather than the person accessing your network is committing a crime, though. Also, how does someone looking for an access point determine whether or not the owner left it open intentionally or not?

I have no problem with routers being sold protected by default and coming with warning labels for those who didn't take South Park's advice and always read stuff. Like you said, that would prevent a lot of misunderstandings.

 

[twocows]

It's illegal in most states and there have been arrests for doing it. That said, whether it's wrong is a question for you to answer, not the law.

 

[donavannj]

You haven't established that my usage is unauthorized yet. There is a legal doctrine called implied consent that I, and others, can raise as a defense. The law is technical and doesn't give heed to common sense. If I were to be prosecuted (assuming that my access is indeed criminal), the state would have to prove that I knowingly accessed the network unauthoriized. That means that I would have to know that I'm not allowed access. Implied consent would dictate that due to the circumstances of the open network, as well as the history of usage without any warnings to cease and desist, that I could reasonably believe that I have consent to access the network.

Adding to what Lightning said, I know that none of my neighbors are an elderly couple. Renaming your SSID something that tells others to keep out could get around an implied consent defense if they want to keep it open for guests that come over or something. And if I were to go into their apartment and eat their food, that would constitute stealing since I am permanently depriving them of their goods.

Still is a safety risk for your personal information.

I've met people my age that have no idea that you can encrypt a wireless router. It's not just limited to elderly couples. And your usage of their connection is using their bandwidth, and the more traffic being pushed through a single access point, the less bandwidth each user connected to that access point gets, whether they paid for it or not.

Though it's already illegal in many states as twocows has said.

It should be noted that ALL new routers have passwords by default.

 

[Archer]

The fact that you have to ask shows that it's clearly morally wrong. Add to that: you're using up their bandwidth and download quota.

Legality is another matter. It's going to differ from country to country, but it's only a matter of time before the laws are more specific. Posting this thread isn't going to help your case if you want to plead naivety.

If you're out and need to check an email with no other way of doing so, then it's understandable. But when you're leeching off someone without their knowledge or consent, when you're perfectly capable of setting up your own home connection, that's just selfish.

If I caught someone doing it, they'd be getting re-directed to the nearest security-compromised site and then MAC blacklisted when there's been enough time to get infected.

 

[Dawn]

How is it stealing? Did your neighbor suffer any form of financial loss? Stealing usually requires somebody to take or use the goods or services of another with the intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner of it. I don't see how access permanently deprives anybody of their Wi-Fi network.

Technically, using someone's network deprives them of bandwidth and potentially brings them closer to a cap and or potentially causes them to have to pay more for the extra data depending on their service. The first always applies though. You could literally be costing a family quite a bit of money each month and not even realize it.

All in all, you really should attempt to get permission. The sheer irresponsibility of not trying is probably why it's morally wrong. No offense.

 

[digit198801]

I don't think its right to mooch off a neighbors connections unless they have given you outright permission to do so or if its widely known that they leave it open so people can use it.

 

[GlaceonX]

To tell ya the truth, I believe if a router is open, it's open. I would consider it morally wrong or illegal if you went thru the trouble of cracking their wifi with a program to get their key when it was supposed to be secured...